Mary Lou McDonald MEP at the Palestinian Solidarity March in Dublin

by Daithi O Se Sun Apr 13, 2008 14:56

Mary Lou makes a very good point on the Lisbon Treaty.

If the treaty is so bent and distorted in favour of current European Mediteranaean policy that it will hamstring us and all and all our politicians in seeking a reasonable settlement for the Palestinians then we should send a clear signal. Rejection.
I dont want to be part of a Union that supports the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and the Human rights abuses in Gaza.

This reason alone convinces me to vote no to that bloody treaty. At least I'll bve able to look my kids in the eye when they grow up and hopefully don't find themselves part of a fascist union with Israel against the Palestinians..

Vote No to Lisbon and Yes to Peace in Palestine : Thats the way I see it.

by Don Sun Apr 13, 2008 23:51

Palestine has nothing to do with the treaty. the EU is not a fascist organisation. Its based on dmeocracy, infact its been responsible for taking down many fascist and communist dictatorships. Also Palestinian supporters should be voting yes. If Israel joins the EU, not that its on offer, they'll hav eot stop thier abuses. John Bruton, ex-leader of Fine Gael and our nation, was apart of the origional draft committee. A good reason to vote yes is that it could be posible that could be president of the EU or the high rep of foriegn affairs. He's very pro-Palestine. And is still well respected in the EU. He is currently abassador to USA for the EU.

by Simon Mon Apr 14, 2008 00:26

Im sorry Don, but you are totally mistaken,

Bruton is a typical mouthpiece for US policy against the Palestinians.

http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index.asp?locID=366&docID=1401

" American policy on Iraq and the use of Shannon by the U.S Military were strongly condemned by Roger Cole, who represents the Peace and Neutrality Alliance on the Forum. He said the issue that most concerned him was EU policy on Palestine. However, Mr Bruton rejected Mr Cole's assertion that the EU had cut off all aid to the Palestinian people following the last elections there. EU financial support, said the Ambassador, was paying the wages of the Palestininan administration. "

Please dont post about things that you dont understand.

by Don Mon Apr 14, 2008 01:05

I dont see that quote proves he is pro-Israeli. Disagreeing with Roger Cole doesnt make one pro-Isreali. Infairnesss Mr.cole frequently gets his facts wrong. I've seen him "debate" a few times, not the no sides best speaker. I'd rather listen to Mary Lou.

I'd consider myself pro-Palestinian, but I would be along John Brutons lines that both sides are responsible for any future peace processes. Hamas needs to stand down. As does Israel.

To qoute John Bruton.

"A viable two-state solution – Israel, and a yet to be created Palestinian state, coexisting peacefully in a very small territory where each will always be vulnerable to the other – must be our objective, but such a two-state solution will require people on both sides to put aside their pain and begin to trust other people they have, perhaps with good reason, never trusted before.

The longer the suffering goes on, the longer the healing will take.".

http://www.eurunion.org/welcome/ambassadorscorner/AmbWk...e.htm

I'd consider his methods to be very pragmatic when it comes to diplomacy.

by Roger Mon Apr 14, 2008 01:24

If you support the Bruton effort then you are at best an impediment to Palestinian independence.
Lets face it , Bruton is supposed to know better, but apparanetly doesnt.

He simply choses to be a supporter of US policy in the ME , which utterly rejects Palestinian nationlaism.

Its his job to support theUS. Bolster American Policy within the EU. Thats the whole point of the debate .

Supporting the EU Embassador to the US supports the US policy.

We need to retain our ability to reject EU cooperation with the US Policy of Imperialism over the middle East and the Oil Wars..

Voting Yes to the Lisbon Treaty is taking that out of our hands forever.

by Treasa Ni Cheannabhain - GIPSC Mon Apr 14, 2008 01:28

Don, If John Bruton is pro- Palestine where is his voice for Palestine??
There is a massive Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza right now ,so why doesn't he show solidarity and go and visit there? Im sure the IDF will give him and any other European diplomats safe passage after all they are not terrorists are they?? And what may I ask is Tony Blair doing now to earn his salary? Was he not also given the brief of creating Peace in the Middle-East? What a joke after the debacle he started in Iraq that still continues with more than one million Iraqis dead and millions more in exile in neighbouring countries!
Angele Merkle visited Israel last month to presumably apologise to the Jews there ,and lay a wreath.
However she totally forgot to apologise to the Palestinians that have taken the punishment for what her country and Europe caused! She didn't even visit West-Bank or Gaza! No rather she is part of the EU that are complicit with Israel in wiping out Palestinians by freezing funding to Gaza just because they have a democratically elected government that the US and Israel dont want to recognize! European and US heads of state refuse to recognize the democratically elected government of Palestine which is Hamas, because they say Hamas does not recognize the state of Israel. Well Yasser Arafat sat down with Israel and recognized them and gave his whole life in trying to talk to anyone that would listen. Did it make a difference? Did George Bush call him a man of Peace? No "Butcher" Sharon was his "man of Peace"
Israel was told by the highest court of law in the world that the apartheid wall they have almost finished building (67%) was illegal four years ago! So why no follow-up from this court to ensure their demands are carried out?
Why dont they send in a demolition team from Europe immediately to pull it down? I suggest a team from the UN should go in and demolish it right now, its an order from the World Court that even their pals in the US had to agree with. After all Saddam Hussein allowed the weapons inspectors into Iraq to search for what was not there WMD!.
Also Israel is responsible for bombing infrastructure in Gaza and West -Bank which was built by EU funding so why dont the EU make them repair it so they will be less trigger-happy the next time.I wish!!

by davekey Mon Apr 14, 2008 01:37

"An ambassador is a diplomatic official accredited to a foreign sovereign or government, or to an international organization, to serve as the official representative of his or her own country. In everyday usage it applies to the ranking government representative stationed in a foreign capital. The host country typically allows the ambassador control of specific territory called an embassy, whose territory, staff, and even vehicles are generally afforded diplomatic immunity in the host country."
-Wikipedia

So which country does Bruton represent?

More propoganda from the eu?

by Sceptic Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:09

"So which country does Bruton represent?"

Its there in the definition you yourself supplied - he represents an international organisation, the European Union, to Washington.

Much of the criticism of the EU in relation to Palestine is based on ignorance of what various organs of the EU are engaged with at various levels, though quietly and behind the scenes for the most part, in the region. The engagement is very deep and long standing. At the same time it cannot be blamed for everything not being the way we might like the area. It does not have that kind of clout and can only act collectively in limited ways. Thus it is an unfair statement to say something like “What is John Bruton or the EU doing about the siege of Gaza?” or “the EU could be doing more etc”. The EU’s role substantial is really limited to conciliation., facilitation and funding. To treat it as a convenient fall guy by people who are opposed or ill disposed to the European project anyway is disingenuous

by Sammi Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:10

So the Palestinians want to incorperate "Israeli land" into a Palestinian state.
Would that be the same land that the UN stole from the Palestinians to create the Israeli state?
Let's not forget the sop being offered to the Palestinians. "Be good boys and girls and we'll let you have your own state back" (the famous/infamous two state deal) I can't see why the Palestinians don't seem to favour this deal. Oh yes maybe it's the fact that this deal provides for little more than two huge Palestinian prisons surrounded by a hostile oppressive Zionist state.
I mean to say how unreasonable is that? Wanting own land back, an end to repression, real self determination, human rights. And hey what about Israel being made to comply with UN resolutions, what sort of crazy idea is that!!!!!

by RogerC Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:15

Sceptic.
The EU has preferential trading deals with Israel in direct condraticion to its OWN rules. So let's not be blind to the EU's very much less than honest role in middle east affairs. Quite clearly money talks louder than morals.

by Daithi O Se Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:31

What you basically saying Sceptic , is that the EU cant do anything.

We cant do anything, the EU cant do anything , nobody can do anything. Give us a break , man.

I am not any supporter of SinnFein or any particular party but what Mary Lou Mc Donald is stating in her speech above is that we need to reject the Lisbon Treaty in order to try to get back control of EU Foreign Policy.

Saying that Europe is nothing more than a catalyst operating quietly in the background with little or no power to change anything is simply imperialist hogwash. Europe has the power to stop the US and Israel in their tracks.

We have a chance to have a say and to overturn this apple cart in the middle of Brussels.

I want No Common Foreign Policy that helps the US and Israel carry on its genocidal policies in the Middle East. If Lisbon makes that easier then I vote NO..

When something is confusing then it is time to focus on one single thing that helps to clarify a matter for you. For me this is it. I cant endorse what is going on in Palestine by voting for an even more helpless, gormless, useless EU than we have now.

I dont care what else Lisbon does , if it helps to continue the ethnic cleansing in Palestine and Gaza the I reject it.

by Sceptic Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:34

Roger C – I am not aware that the EU is acting against its own rules in relation to trade deals – it cannot act unlawfully or the trade deal in question would be overturned by the EU courts. There are preferential trade deals with numerous blocks and States. The EU is founded in trade. Trade beings people together, prevents war and creates mutual prosperity. There would be no point in boycotting Israel nor genuine grounds for it even though the IPSC may like that. Because all does not go the way that PANA or IPSC likes does not mean we must overthrow the whole European project which unquestionable have brought enormous benefits to its members and aspiring members. Outside of Europe its powers are limited. Besides the Member States would not permit a trade
boycott of Israel. This one would be a call for the Member States not the Commission. You cannot blame and demonise the EU for failing to stop trade with Israel when the democratic organs of the EU itself have not voiced such a demand. The initiative would have to come from the Governments or from the parliament. It is hypocritical to be blaming the EU for trade with Israel when you would not get even the Irish people to oppose that.

Daithi O Se – the sad reality is that with the exception of the US and Iran no other actors outside the region have much influence on the situation. Europe – both the major powers and the EU itself are bit players. There is no point in getting frustrated over this its reality. Europe’s main influence these days is largely confined to Europe itself. Nor can Europe force others to act in a certain way. Europe can persuade cajole support etc but the decisive things will be decided elsewhere. The heart of the problem is that each of the parties must really want a reasonable settlement – that is not the reality just now. Opposing the Lisbon Treaty will do absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians and will harm Ireland diplomatically and economically.

As for Mary Lou’s intervention in all of this she shows her own moral turpitude by her unqualified support for IRA paramilitary terror down the years. The rest of us need no lessons from the likes of her in relation to this or any form of morality.

by David L - IPSC (personal capacity) Mon Apr 14, 2008 14:01

Unfortunately the EU is disregarding its own rules in its dealings with Israel. The Euromed agreement which gives Israel preferential trade terms with the EU has a human rights clause (article 2). As Mary Lou said, this article 'has been comprehensively, systematically and brazenly defied time and again' by Israel, and so the agreement needs to be suspended.

Let's face it, this isn't a hugely radical position. The EU Parliament has voted twice (and been ignored twice) to suspend the agreement. And last week Jim Higgins, the Fine Gael MEP also called upon this human rights clause to be activated.

By rewarding Israel, the EU is also in defiance of the International Court on Human Rights judgement a couple of years ago. But that's another story.

by RogerC Mon Apr 14, 2008 14:56

sceptic.
I didn't mention europe boycotting Israel (though I do personally think that would be a good move) I was refering to "Preferential" trading agreements between EU and Israel. The kind that the EU isn't supposed to have with any country who are in defiance of UN resolutions.

by Sceptic Mon Apr 14, 2008 16:17

Mary Lou’s involvement with the IPSC is opportunistic and two faced. She seems unchastened by her recent rejection by the electorate in Dublin North Central. Her concern about human rights is confined to targeting Israel (and Britain and other western targets) while passing over in silence the egregious denial of human rights of IRA victims. Is the IPSC also silent on non-Palestinian victims of violence? If there is not some Israel bashing involved is it really interested? I recall that when Hamas took over Gaza they hurled some Fatah officials from high buildings to their deaths and lynched members of the Fatah police force. These were Palestinian victims of human rights abuses we did not hear too much from the IPSC. Is the IPSC seriously interested in a compromise settlement in the middle east or is it, as it seems to me, to be a single issue, one sided, anti Israeli protest group which cannot bring itself to condemn the rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza? The IPSC itself is safely at a great distance out of the firing line of the Qasam rockets – how easy it is to get one sidedly indignant at a safe distance.

As regards the EU trade arrangements with Israel they are only preferential in the sense that they enjoy equality with other favoured nations and that includes most of the globe. Rather than trying to undermine trade efforts should be devoted to persuade the Palestinians to build a civil society that can enjoy the fruits of peace, trade included, and get over its fondness of violence and extremism. There are human rights issues in non-OECD states but tearing up trade agreements is not the way to handle these issues. Otherwise there would be hardly any trade – besides there are ethical issues with refusing to trade in food. Thus despite the odious Mugabe trade has not been affected. Did the EP vote on this matter in a plenary session? Has Mary Lou called for any other trade agreements to be abrogated or are her attentions confined to Israel? Contrast the effect of suspending this trade agreement with that of suspending the rocket attacks and terrorism against Israel- the former will just worsen the problems though make the IPSC happy but the latter would be transformative. The ISPC would be doing the Palestinians a favour if they would point this point to their friends in the area. Its easy to thrash Israel, the EU, the US and all the rest but only the Palestinians themselves can help themselves but they need advice they don’t want to hear from their western friends not feeding of their victimhood. Anyway this is an issue of detail – I still don’t see how opposing the Lisbon Treaty is going to help the Palestinians. Have you not the honestly to admit all the assistance that the EU has already and is still giving to the Palestinians? It’s easy in a complex environment to find an issue to protest about. It substitutes for the discipline and hard work of really analysing complex and difficult issues. Its easier to pass a hundred motions condemning Israel than one condemning terror from the other side. Iran is the really malign force in all of this but we will be waiting to see an IPSC protest at that embassy. Instead have another march and the usual suspects will show up and at a demo and clap whoever tells them what they want to hear like Mary Lou. What does it say about the IPSC that it has to rely on support from a blatant political carpetbagger and terror apologist anxious to polish up her image like Mary “Lou”. This speaks volumes and tells us all we need to know about the IPSC.

by David L - IPSC (personal capacity) Tue Apr 15, 2008 09:34

In reply to ‘sceptic’ I wouldn’t like to reply for Mary Lou, merely say that she’s been a consistent supporter of Palestinian rights, and we were delighted to have her speak at our demonstration.

About who we do and don’t condemn – we’re against all violence, but seriously, let’s get some perspective. Last year 6 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians, this year about the same. At the same time hundreds of Palestinians were killed by Israel. Nor is it simply a numbers game. Israel is the occupying power, is the aggressor, has all the power in this conflict – only they and their supporters (such as the EU and US) can stop the violence that they’ve initiated.

As for your suggestions what we should do – ignore EU complicity in Israeli crimes; you’re basically demanding that we should ignore the fact that that the EU (which represents us) is ignoring its own rules and ignoring human rights in assisting Israel. I think we’ll pass on that one. You suggest we should help Palestinians build a civil society – actually, by opposing the occupation we’re doing that. It is impossible to build any society in the context of a brutal military occupation that has deliberately destroyed the Palestinian economy, and made normal life impossible.

Nor can you even claim that the occupation is as a result of Palestinian violence – a classic case of blaming the victims. Despite a quiescent West Bank over the last year, the occupation has only gotten worse. There’s more checkpoints, more house demolitions, expanded settlements. This is the obstacle to peace.

Another point – you may be angry and want to get it all out of your system, but please use paragraphs and punctuation – it’s simply a courtesy to those of us trying to understand what you’re saying.

by Sceptic Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25

The legitimate grievances of the Palestinians or their difficulties are not to be denied. Contrast though the Hamas outlook with that of the Israeli settlers in Mandate Palestine who created a thriving civil society and the makings of a successful polity and economy well before the fact of Israeli independence. The hope for Palestine is the adoption of a more progressive and pro-civil society approach on the part of Fattah. The gravest threat to Palestine is not Israel – it is the Hamas obscurantist view based on extremism, violence and Islamism of the type promoted by the Iranian creation and proxy Hezbollah. Nothing kills peace and hope more than suicide bombing and the Qasim rocket which quietened the Israeli Peace party and the Israeli moderates which is what they are designed to do as well as to kill off the settlement efforts supported by the US, Jordan, Egypt, the Arab League and Saudi Arabia. The Oslo process was snuffed out by suicide bombers more than anything else. This is reality – it is not blaming the victims. It is recognizing that there are valid criticisms to be made of certain Palestinian factions just as they are to be made of Israeli policy for example in respect of settlements. But the answer to all of this is not a victory for one side or another but a comprise which can only happen when appeals to moderation and non violence are heeded. In all of this the western notion of Palestinian “Solidarity” which the main rallying cry for action is against Israel and the EU is utterly misplaced. Attacking trade agreements and collective institutions are not the answer though they are the easiest ones to present and feel indignant about. What makes peace and keeps it are trade and international bodies – it is not these that should be undermined.

If there were a breach of EU in relation to the EU trade arrangments with Israel the proper body to adjudicate would not be Sinn Fein or the IPSC or Roger Cole but the European Court of First Instance to which forum the issue should be brought.

But all of this is still singling out Israel and ganging up on it. What other States, with far more serious human rights issues than Israel, does the IPSC feel should have its trade arrangments linked to human rights? The usual Israel bashing from the platform warms your hearts but it contributes nothing whatever to a solution to these difficulties. That is the fundamental problem with the IPSC. It attacks the wrong targets and only encourages extremism and thus contributes nothing that might bring lasting good.

And my point about Mary Lou is valid. Its not whether she has been consistent that matters – what position is she in to make an issue of the human rights records of the Israelis when she refuses to condemn wholesale human rights abuses from her own side. She could not even bring herself to condemn the murder of Mrs. McConville. Furthermore the IRA were not beneath killing Muslims when it suited them. Two were killed at Canary Wharf in 1996 but we won’t expect Mary Lou to condemn that. The IPCS seems not to have too much of a problem with it either. It’s easy to condemn the record of your chosen enemies. The acid test is to be consistent in your condemnation with your own side’s abuses. Mary Lou fails that test utterly.

by David L Tue Apr 15, 2008 13:02

Like ‘sceptic’ I wish Israel wasn’t singled out by the EU – by which I mean, given preferential treatment not usually granted to other military regimes enforcing a brutal illegal occupation. Since the EU does ‘single out’ Israel in this way, we will condemn it. It’s really that simple.

And in response to the somewhat facile question of why we don’t criticise other states – the answer sort of lies in our name. Individual members are involved in other human rights campaigns, and indeed whenever LASC or the Free Tibet campaign does anything there is always some idiot equally eager to criticise them for ‘singling out’ whatever country they talk about.

The other point ‘sceptic’ makes which is worth replying to is this: ‘the Oslo process was snuffed out by suicide bombers’. It wasn’t. Check your history; the Oslo process was dead long before the first suicide bomb – because of the doubling of illegal settlements (which I notice ‘sceptic’ doesn’t mention) in the Oslo years.

Not that Oslo – which Edward Said characterised as a way of building Apartheid, complete with its own bantustans – was such a wonderful thing. But that’s another argument, and in a way an irrelevant one, since Israel has shown that it’s not even prepared to give Palestinians bantustans – only open-air completely-walled prisons. The simple fact is that Israel will not give the Palestinians anything unless large-scale international pressure is stepped up. Hence our activities.

by Diego Tue Apr 15, 2008 13:23

" What other States, with far more serious human rights issues than Israel, does the IPSC feel should have its trade arrangments linked to human rights? "

Sceptic ,

What worse Human rights abuses are you talking about. ?

Kidnapping, Mass Murder, Ethnic cleansing, imprisonment without trial, torture, execution without trial, mass starvations, mass punishments, child murders, forcing pregnant women to have babies at checkpoints whilst standing around watching. Ecological terrorism, home theft, land theft, building walls in contravention of international law, building settlements in contrvention of international law, thwarting international peace efforts and attacking peaceful protests with deadly force. Persecution for reasons of race , persecution for reasons of religion, shooting babies.

What worse Human rights abuses are you talking about?

by Sceptic Tue Apr 15, 2008 16:42

Said was a wealthy and foreign domiciled Palestinian. He could luxuriate in criticism of the Oslo process – it was not him or his children that would have to live the dire consequences of its collapse, nor his purist Irish admirers. That collapse has doomed another generation of Palestine’s less fortunate native children to an utterly blighted present and future.

Was the Oslo settlement perfect? No, it was quite easy to find fault with if one wanted to especially if one lived elsewhere. Ditto the GFA for that matter as some of the wilder Republican rejectionists on these boards point out for us daily.

The genesis of Oslo was in Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and it represented the best hope for peace for the people who actually live in the region, not at a safe distance, particularly with substantial EU funding for the PA. The alternative to its success was the perdition we now witness.

Israel has never committed genocide unlike others in the region and outside of it that have done it often on a grand scale as is the case with the Assad regime in Syria – there has not been a Hama or a Matabeleland or a Halabja committed by it. These flagrant atrocities don’t attract protests however. They were not committed by Israel and besides the regimes that did commit them were leftist in some sense. Enough to get them off the hook for some in this neighbourhood.

As for Mary Lou I will begin to listen to her on Israeli issues when she condemns the numerous IRA atrocities. Human Rights are supposed to be universal, not for Palestinians alone. Those whom the IRA chose as its victims had their human rights too as Mary Lou and the IPSC should be reminded.

by Diego Tue Apr 15, 2008 17:17

Rubbish

Israel is committing genocide as you arrogantly type your tripe into the computer. If you care to match the actions of Israel against the defintions of genocide you will clearly see how very wrong you are.
------------
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

--------------

Who has commited crimes continually worse than Israel? Saddam and his likes?

This is my point exactly on this issue. Israel is best compared to the worst despots in the world when examining Human Rights Records. Not much of an accolade, but true none the less.
Sometimes it comes out better sometimes not. Either ways I'd still like to know what you are referring to when you say "much worse human rights abuses" Seems to me Israel has it all pretty much covered and is one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world.

by Mr. Man Tue Apr 15, 2008 17:17

What? Sinn Fein trying to win over niche voters? Surely not!!!!! They would hop on any bandwagon to appear to be 'for the people'. The words 'Pot' 'Kettle' and 'Black' come to mind. Perhaps IRA dealings with the Nazis is governed by some other moral code. I shudder at the thought of foreign policy driven by nationalists.

by Mr Benn Tue Apr 15, 2008 17:22

None of the attacks on Mary Lou McDonald deal with what she said- they are all attacks on her personally, her supposed motives, or her party's position on other matters.

Is there something too hard about attacking what she actually said?

by Sceptic Wed Apr 16, 2008 13:13

The bona fides of SF are very relevant to this. Mary Lou's militants killed maimed intimidated and robbed on a grand scale across four European countries (Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Federal Republic of West Germany) and attempted mass murder in a fifth (the overseas territory of Gibraltar). It maintained relations or parleyed with some of the most repugnant actors on the world stage (Gadaffi, FARC). It engaged in ethnic cleansing, before the term was invented, against protestant farmers in Fermanagh. They ensured that all but the Fountain enclave on the west bank of the Foyle was cleared of protestants and even then killed a protestant who came back to his church on the west bank on a Sunday morning with his family.

With this record she had the neck to start lecturing the EU (a collection of liberal democratic states) and Israel (a liberal democratic state which showed the way at Entebbe in fighting back against terror of Mary Lou's ilk) and holding forth about trade after three decades of terror, bloodshed and amoral alliances. Unlike SF who had a great deal to unlearn before they converted to normal politics the European project has always been democratic and lawful and has managed to overcome the not just Irish obsession with sovereignty which has cause so much trouble in European history. Instead of caricaturing the EU some might be better off studying it more before going off on their single issue protests and grievances to sabotage it.

There is no point in contorting the definitions of genocide to try to prove Israel committed same as opposed to being born of it. Had Israel existed in 1939 much of European Jewry might have been saved from their ravage at the hands of racial and nationalist intolerance.

by Tom - None Wed Apr 16, 2008 15:09

Back to the Holocaust again in an effort to defend and excuse State terror as practiced by the Israelis in Palestine. The bullied becomes the bully and in this case, carries out ethnic cleansing in the region.

You own “racist intolerance” has been shown all through this message string…

You wrote:
- “Rather than trying to undermine trade efforts should be devoted to persuade the Palestinians to build a civil society that can enjoy the fruits of peace, trade included, and get over its fondness of violence and extremism.”

This implies that the Palestinians are a people with a predetermined nature towards violence and aggression. This is as racist as comment as if you were to say that ‘black people of South Africa’ are “fond of violence”. The civil society is made up of the people you are referring to. Your support for the Apartheid Wall highlights the racist nature of your position. Saying “Well, it stops the bombs” doesn’t mean it is not racist.

Again and again you defend state/military violence against civilians. How can you do that and then call for other people to denounce violent actions? Does this not make you as bad as them, in your eyes?
According to your posts above, the Palestinians are the only ones who indulge in ‘terror’. By your very definition of it, the Israelis cannot practise terror, thereby making their own actions legitimate. To take an easy, non lethal example: how would you describe the terrorising of a entire population by subjecting them, night and day, to very loud sonic booms caused by F16 jets flying low over densely populated cities? The purpose is simple; to cause fear and terror in the subjected men, women and children.. It won’t stop rocket attacks, it won’t kill gunmen, and it won’t stop equipment/fuel for rockets. Is that the propagation of, or defence from, ‘terror’?
Also, this practise is way down on the list of violent actions that Diego listed above. Was there a reason you ignored his post?

Man as I read your posts, I really hope that you are just trying to raise hackles of your perceived opposite numbers on Indymedia. If not, you are as deluded as you are confident in your viewpoint. Did ya ever think that you might be wrong?

by still no answer Wed Apr 16, 2008 18:38

Sceptic, we know you don't like Sinn Fein, (what a surprise!). But is there some reason why you won't comment on what Mary Lou McDonald actually said (rather than tell us about the history of the world as you see it)?

It's easy enough- she made a speech. What do think of it? Not of her, of what she said.